Having a monarchy in this date and age is not the concept of a true democratic system. Should Britain's Parliment take action to remove the monarchy, and replace with a constitution? I think so, but what do you think?
PS: I like Elizabeth, she seems like a good person and hasn't done anything terrible... but still, monarchy is against the concept of Democracy- where people are in control.
2007-11-10 23:01:50 · 14 answers · asked by Laurence B 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No.
2007-11-10 23:05:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would the Queen be removed?
It is called a constitutional monarchy, not even a limited monarchy as it was in the time of William of Orange and Mary. I have heard that supporting the royals of England costs each citizen 1 pound a year! That is quite a small amount of the English economy.
As for democracy, the Queen actually helps it more than anything. She acts like the USA president, in the fact that she signs bills into action. She is seen as a great delegate for England in foreign countries. She maintains a strong relationship with Commonwealth countries.
The elimination of the Queen would be severely detrimental to England and its citizens, along with the fact that it wouldn't improve the democratic part of government at all.
2007-11-10 23:38:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that we'd need a long, hard, slog before we decide what kind of constitution we want.
Look to the USA - currently people are trying to misuse amendments to push petty political agendas on gay marriage and the like. So, the first thing is, the constitution should be *very* hard to amend once in place. So, it should be right first time.
Then we have the issue of how we replace the figurehead of the queen. Many people try scare tactics to preserve the current status, pointing out how well a "President Thatcher" or "President Blair" would have gone down.
I feel the solution is simple - and provided by that great forward thinker, Douglas Adams. We need a Zaphod Beeblebrox style presidency - one where the person who is president has no real power, and has a good time being President, so they don't really notice. Since the queen currently has few powers, then I see no reason to replace it with a much more powerful position.
It's also a good chance to put some basic rights down and set in stone. The politicians may not like some of these, if we insist on provisions for reasonable privacy of individuals, and openness of government, but the War on Terror® has shown that if we don't lock down our freedoms, they will be taken away in the *name* of freedom.
2007-11-10 23:13:20 · answer #3 · answered by kirun 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Given that this country has already got what is only a constitutional monarchy, can you suggest what the point would be of removing the Monarchy and replacing it with a President?
The Royal family in the UK have no constitutional authority, there's no point in abolishing it.
Even if there was, you'd have to then elect a President, who would have to have a residency suitable for a head of State. Thereby making not a blind bit of difference to the country, except the head of State would now be able to show his or her opinions on government policies, which the current Head of State cannot do.
2007-11-11 09:03:04 · answer #4 · answered by Beastie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Queen has very little,if any,real power anyway. It's just a way for British taxpayers to pay through the nose,so someone can live really well and contribute nothing. I think it's ridiculous that the Queen and the royaql family is given the attention they are,but I figure if the British people want to have a monarchy that's their business,just glad I don't have to pay for what I consider the worlds most famous wards of the state.
YTP
2007-11-11 00:34:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
The queen generates allot of income for Britain.
Do you know how dreary England would be without the monarchy?
The queen is why Britian has so many visitors.
She really doesn't run the government anymore. It's not a dictatorship.
2007-11-11 00:24:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The monarchy the main safeguard of democracy. The alternative is to have a politician or a general as head of state. We have quite enough trouble with lying politicians getting elected and then suiting themselves for 5 years. At least the monarch has the power to dismiss the government and force an election.
For those who favour a republic, here are two warnings: George Bush, Pervez Musharraf .
2007-11-10 23:08:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
The Queen ought to be removed if she does nothing to stop the politicians signing away the powers of the Westminster parliament to the European dictatorship. The politicians who are doing this are more against the concept of democracy than Liz, but she is the last check on this treacherous politicians and she has failed her people.
2007-11-11 08:40:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought Britain was a constititional monarchy. The queen is more of a traditonal/historical post and although she has considerable influence it is the elected officials that have the power.
2007-11-10 23:10:19 · answer #9 · answered by Triumph 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Queen cannot be removed as a symbolic head although it is no longer administering the services rendered by government.
2007-11-11 00:46:06 · answer #10 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
are you American by chance it will never happen in Great Britain America way of getting in to this country by the back door there are only 51 states in America not 52 like bush thinks
2007-11-10 23:45:53 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋